Hedonism, bane of human trafficking

With these words, the Supreme Court on 19.05.2022 recognized prostitution as a profession and said and sex workers are entitled to dignity and equal protection under the law.  

The Apex Court directed the competent authorities of the State Governments/ UTs under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 to comply with the provisions of the Act.  

It was further held by the three Judge Bench that:  

“It need not be gainsaid that notwithstanding the profession, every individual in this country has a right to a dignified life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Constitutional protection that is given to all individuals in this country shall be kept in mind by the authorities who have a duty under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,1956.”  

Sadly, even though the Supreme Court of India has regarded women soliciting men as the oldest profession in the world, the latest observations by the Supreme Court in Budhadev Karmaskar Versus State of West Bengal & Ors. has the effect of decriminalizing women from being implicated as an abettor.  

Incidentally, Section 4 of the IT (P) Act, 1956 prescribes punishment for living on the earnings from the sexual exploitation of any person who knowingly lives, wholly or in part, on such earnings.  

While it is certainly despicable to learn about the unfortunate circumstance constituting immoral traffic of vulnerable women through Goa as a connection point.  

From a parochialistic point of view, it becomes necessary to illustrate the instance whereby casinos in Goa represent just another form of inducement towards implied sexual exploitation of female performers while the casino corporation and all its employees earn from the inducement. The exploitation being broadly classified under Section 354A to 354D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.  

Advertisements of scantily clad female performers offering their bodies for voyeurism can also be treated as a form of implied sexual exploitation wherein the spectators could inadvertently engage in sexual harassment and stalking under the influence of inebriating substances while the casino benefits from the earnings in revenue due to such inducement.  

While the former Chief Minister of Goa, had promised to ban the entry of Goans into the floor of the offshore casino back in 2012, it is interesting to note that Section 13G of the Goa Public Gaming (Amendment) Act, 2012 prohibits the entry to places or area designated for gaming to persons other than tourists who shall have entry to the place or area where the games are actually conducted.   

Contrastingly, every printed advertisement put up by casinos outside the Dabolim Airport depicts scantily clad female performers expressing themselves evocatively in close proximity to the gaming tables on the casino Floor.  

Then what contradictory outcome could be perceived from prohibiting so called ‘original Goans’ from entering the casino floor where the performances depicting immoral innuendo are shrewdly organised to entertain patrons in these casinos. Could such a prohibition of entry be meant to retain secrecy of the hedonistic operations going on at the casinos?  

Incidentally, the only way to exert Police control would be to board the vessel while it is offshore in the river, thus, affording enough time to cease the immoral activities.  

In sum and substance, what would be the fate of normative circumstance that has been traditionally imbibed in Goan morality?  

Prudence, prima facie, has been regarded as a normative form of discourse that cries out for further investigation of what it would be like and whether it would have problematic commitments.  

Philosophers have long theorized about what could make people’s lives go well, and why, and the extent to which morality and self-interest can be reconciled.  

Normative prudence therefore, stands to unfurl the societal stigmas which translate into inhibitions upon one’s objective judgment.  

Take for example a police constable who joins the police force from the OBC quota. It wouldn’t be out of bounds to assume the he would be experiencing taboos while comparing cosmopolitan urban life to the traditional values and morals instilled through his community.  

Can the social abominations actually surpass the inhibitions which our ancestors rightly instilled into our morality in order to serve as safeguards against hedonism?  

For now, the questions which need to be posited are:  

Is the casino gaming and tourism industry offering a front for organized crime in the form of sexual exploitation of women albeit for visual gratification of its patrons?  

Are similar performances of brazen sexuality likely to be found in other States which are regarded as being more conservative?  

Would Goan women be objectified because of this negative culture of the female body being commoditized in advertisements seen around the state?  

Is it to be presumed that because Goa has 160 kms. of coastline, bikinis are a common dress code and can be worn even in formal settings?  

Would every performance of an artistic nature that is equally evocative face the exemption as per the ratio laid down in Bobby Art International Vs. Om Pal Singh Hoon & Ors. (1996) wherein the Supreme Court held that “Art is an activity by which a person, having experienced an emotion, intentionally transmits it to others”.  

Then resultantly, where would we as Goans be headed as an exceedingly liberalized society?   

Can the promotion of hedonism in tourism force the dilution of our Goan identity irreversibly?

The writer is a Doctoral Researcher working under the Alliance of European Universities and has presented his research works at various Academic Conferences in Germany, Switzerland and Spain